Chronicles of Narnia

[Munkay]

Just a question. What you said was an entirely fair statement. I don't think you are trolling, which is really nice.

Who defines "feral" and what is "civilised"?

A long time ago, ALL human beings had locks. No combs. It is natural for hair to entwine with it's self and create locks. It's part of the human evolution. In the blistering heat, you can soak your locks in water, and the slow evaporation with air flow through the locks acts as a radiator effect. (Even normal sweating will cool you) Evaporation and airflow cools the head considerably. In the freezing cold, locks, with pockets of air trapped in them, keep you warmer and act as a better insulator than combed hair. The ability to have our hair lock is what allowed us total environmental adaptation, in addition to our wonderful brains and flexable thumbs. It's all part of the total package.

A very very long time ago, let's go back to early Egypt. People wore locks. Even in the later parts of the Egyptian Empire. King Tut had locks, which are still remarkably well preserved. Would you say that the Egyptians were "feral"? What about the Babylonians? Persians? Ancient Hebrews and their early civilisations?

It's a fair question.

It bothers me that people with locks in movies are always shown in a negative light. It bothers me that people like you hold views that locks are somehow associated with being "feral". It bothers me that you have been spoonfed an image your whole life, one that you are not even aware of I believe, that anybody that somehow looks different from you is somehow "feral". Don't feel bad, it is associative xenophobia, something pounded in to our heads by our parents, our surrounding milieu during our impressionable years, and our educational system. It is also a deeply ingrained instinctual response hardwired in to our brains that causes us to see anybody different from us as a threat to our own subgroup, from way back in the days when human beings were a remarkably fragile species on the verge of being wiped out by anything, and were still competitive with each other for territory, living space, and food.

And that's what bothers me. I would venture a guess that some clever person gave the White Witch locks in an attempt to make audiences really dislike her on some deep instinctual level... By tapping in to that "associative xenophobia". She is obviously different. And therefore, bad. People have built in programming that can be tapped to hate her. It would build emotional tension in the audience. And most people will never even be able to put their finger on why they don't like her, although many will make the connection that she is after all, a witch, and she is evil, but there will be sense of revulsion that goes deep down in to the onion layers of our brains... A programmed response that few can deny. Even better, in a theatre, surrounded by like looking social milieu most likely, people that look very much the same, on a deep empathetic level, there will be a group sense of revulsion, which is really a very interesting psychological response if you want to get right down to it.

Oops. Er... Hey um... I think I just gave my self away. I am obviously not the absent minded old fool that many think of me to be. I shall go back to being a fool that makes jokes about everything now and stop being so bloody serious.

Just something to think about folks when you go to the theatre folks. Ponder the real enemy.

I've read this thread for a while, and I think it's due time that I've responded. Up until now I've tried to sympathize with your viewpoint. You are angered and frustrated with the association of dreadlocks with an evil character in a movie. And as someone who has dreadlocks, I do understand the frustration you feel about this association between dreadlocks and evil, especially since the movie will be viewed by millions of people. And I can not stress enough that it is entirely in your right, Doc, to be frustrated and angered about this. And although I personally do not share this frustration, I respect that it is in your right.

But after this last I felt the need to respond. You ask who defines civilized and who defines feral? In one sense, the difference is merely evolutionary. Loosely speaking, the civilized are those people who band together and live as a community under a common rule system, and the feral are those that do not come together and live under a common rule system. At this point there is no value assigned to either. The value part comes down to a question of whether or not you believe it is human nature to be a social animal. If you believe that they are, then the person who lives in a society is in a sense more human, and the feral person more of a beast. If you believe the opposite, that human beings are not by nature a social animal, then too the values will be opposite (same goes for belief's that a "stronger person" lives a feral life and a "weaker person" a civilized life, and vice versa).

After this Doc, you point to the history of mankind. Here you seem to answer your own question. If mankind began with dreadlocks, then dreadlocks were first and foremost a sign of when we had feral natures. Now, the human beings in the world live in societies, or civilizations. And since we (more or less) chose to live as a society, we opt for the first value judgement: it is better to be civilized than feral. And since, as you stated, dreadlocks are first associated with the feral, it is not surprising that civilization on the whole does not wear their hair in dreadlocks. Now I personally am not saying this is right or wrong, but following logically this is the answer to your question.

Now, as for your examples about civilizations with dreadlocks, such as Egypt etc. Pardon the generalization, but human history on the whole has become more "civilized" the longer it exists - by civilized I mean it in the sense that societies drop habits that are linked to a more feral existance. It is similar to the evolution of the disgust of body odor. The 'early' civilizations, Greece, Egypt, and Rome, had a whole lot of stinky people in them. (Yes, the Romans were famous for their baths, but these acted more as social gathering places than washbasins).

I hope this clears things up, and this post does not come off as a flame. The answer to the question you were asking was contained in your own text. I just figured I'd help you out a bit.

When I have more time I'll try to respond to your point about "associative Xenophobia",

Cheers,

Munk